On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 02:08:45PM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
> > + Example:
> > +
> > + [EMAIL PROTECTED] {
> > + compatible = "fsl,mpc8360-qe-muram-usb-pram",
> > + "fsl,qe-muram-usb-pram",
> > + "fsl,cpm-muram-usb-pram";
> > + reg = <0x8b00 0x100>;
> > + };
Why not put it as an additional reg resource on the ucc node, instead of
in its own node? That's how existing CPM bindings do it.
> > + t) Freescale QUICC Engine USB Controller
> > +
> > + Required properties:
> > + - compatible : should be "fsl,<chip>-qe-usb", "fsl,qe-usb",
> > + "fsl,usb-fhci"
>
> Again, I'd leave out "fsl,qe-usb" and "fsl,usb-fhci".
QE is the name of a specific IP block, and is unlikely to be broken in a
non-backwards-compatible manner without having a new name such as QE2. I
think this is taking "no generic names" too far. If these names *are*
left out, then at least document which chip we're supposed to pick out of
a hat to claim compatibility with.
-Scott
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
